Watch Out The Curve

I wanted to start a new category, Apocalypse (a.k.a. Gamma Ray Burst = GRB), in TOEBI blog. After all, the apocalypse is pretty much the outcome from our current scientific path. No matter what, and I mean even without my humble contribution, mainstream physics will finally, say in few years or decades, find the truth about "antimatter". Yeah, that's right, the truth what I have preached about for a couple of years now.

But why blame science or specifically physics about it? It's up to us how we use scientific discoveries, right? Sure, to some point that's true. The problem is that the development in sciences in getting faster and faster. Good example is written down by Tim Urban in Wait But Why, in where artificial intelligence is seen as the player in the end game. Same applies in physics... the next big thing in physics (curve) is the discovery of the true nature of "antimatter" and it's going to be a true black swan.

After we have discovered the true nature of "antimatter" we can't undo it. We have to live with it, from the point of discovery to our GRB event. We don't have almost any chances escaping the event. How come? With the help of antimatter based technology we could design and build a new type of space vehicles which carries us away from the future GRB! Unfortunately getting far enough in order to be at safe from the event takes just too much time. As we can see, GRB is pretty effective mechanism for the great filter.

Surely there must be some way for avoiding the event? You tell me.

Update: Actually I came up with one possibility. We might manage to reach the nearest solar system in time and hide there behind some planet so that the possible GRB won't cause any harm on people on board.

Electron in Magnetic Field

This post is inspired by Berry's challenge...

So let's have a magnetic field of 0.1 T in z-direction and an electron with \vec f aligned in x-direction and a velociy of 100 m/s in x-direction. What happens according to TOEBI?

How does it play out in TOEBI? Let's assume that the magnetic field is homogeneous and constructed with two opposite magnetic poles where electron density is constant (electrons/area). First of all, unit Tesla is defined by mainstream physics without the knowledge of the underlying mechanism which generates electric and magnetic fields. Therefore our first task is to solve the amount of electrons in magnetic poles which would generate the effect of 0.1 T. We already know how such a homogeneous magnetic field is constructed, we need to have our electrons (in the magnetic poles) in a symmetric spinning vector pattern around the center of the pole (CoP). Every electron has its spinning vector aligned with the pole's surface and perpendicular to the direction of CoP and neighboring electrons' spinning vectors are parallel (see picture).

Lower magnetic pole (N) from above
Lower magnetic pole (N) from above

How big force 0.1 T field would generate on our moving charge? Mainstream unit (T) requires mainstream equation, hence

f=q*v*B=\frac{m*v^2}{r}\approx1.60217657*10^{-18}\text{ N}\tag{1}

so the radius for generated circle would be

r=\frac{m*v}{q*B}\approx5.68563*10^{-9}\text{ m}\tag{2}

and we do know that single electron changes its spinning vector orientation antiparallel to the spinning vectors on its trajectory. Electrons in magnetic poles can't change their spinning vector orientations (too easily) due to their interactions with the surrounding material (magnet's material).

The question goes, how many electrons is needed to keep the electron in the track where r is known? First observations is that the electron must experience attractive net force towards the CoP and part of the attractive force is generated by the electrons on the other half of the circle. On top of those electrons, also the electrons on the right hand side of the electron's path generate repulsive force pushing the electron towards the CoP. Net attractive force overcomes also the repulsive force generated by the electrons between the electron and the CoP.

*** Removed the calculation for now


Above would hold if the electron between the poles wouldn't change its spinning vector orientation in relation to the CoP, however, it does change it because it's moving. Surrounding FTE density is pretty much the same in radial dimension, hence the electron is free to change its spinning vector orientation perpendicular to its velocity during the time when the electron is between adjacent orbital electrons in the poles. The amount of spinning vector orientation change depends on the velocity of the electron, slower it moves more it's capable of changing the orientation, hence lesser the force towards the CoP.

If the electron doesn't move at all it will find itself between the adjacent orbital electrons having its spinning vector aligned with the pole radius.

More updating...

Finally I realized what's going on in the gap between the poles. Also I realized that I had a wrong idea about how particles behave during motion. Now I have updated Introduction to TOEBI paper accordingly. I'll re-write this post in future.

Three Free Electrons

Let's get this conundrum clear now. How do they behave in various setups. Our basic assumption is that these three free electrons are in equilateral triangle shape so that the distance between any two electrons is the same.

Three ElectronsThree Electrons upside down

Major update starts

Let's assume that the initial distance between the electrons is large enough for not disturbing the wave pattern generated by these electrons (at least not too much), so that second law is applicaple. Now we can describe quolitative what happens. After more detailed description of repulsive force we are able to do quantitative predictions regarding the timing and trajectories.

Electrons having parallel spinning vectors experience attractive force towards each other as stated by second law and they start moving towards the center of the system. FTE density between electrons ncreases to the point where electrons' trajectories are reversed. Build up repulsive potential energy does the job. If one of the electrons had antiparallel spinning vector orientation at begin with then things would progress differently. Now the electron with antiparallel spinning vector starts immediately generate repulsive force towards the other two. At the same time those two electrons with parallel spinning vectors attracts each other to the point where repulsion kicks in.

In principle it should be possible to measure the different electron behaviour between this setup and the setup where all spinning vectors were parallel. All we need to measure is if all these electrons hit symmetrically (and with proper distances) set up measuring devices at the same time. In case of all spinning vectors parallel, electrons should hit the measuring devices at the same time but in the other case one electron (antiparallel one) should hit the measuring device before the other two. Those other two electrons have to travel an additional distance before they start experience the repulsive force.

Major update ends (text below is wrong)

1. Scenario

All spinning vectors are parallel. The key player is the bottom electron which has FTEP flux which ejects FTEPs from underneath itself towards the other two (for more information check out subsection Two Electron Based Particles from Introduction to Theory of Everything by Illusion). This electron (electron B) starts to change its spinning vector orientation after the other two. But which one of these other two electrons starts the spinning orientation changing? Again, the surrounding FTE density dictates the order. The one which is closer to Earth's center of mass (electron C) generates denser FTEP flux (*), hence will be the anchor for the other electron. So, the spinning vector changing order would be, top electron, down electron and the original anchor electron. This order is also the order for electrons leaving the scene.

(*) If the triangle is top down, then the upper electron which ejects FTEPs from underneath of itself towards the other upper electron will be the anchor for the other upper electron. In the picture right it would electron A.

2. Scenario


There is two parallel spinning vectors (electrons A and B) and one antiparallel (electron C). This one is easy. Based on TL2 those antiparallel spinning vectors (B and C) generate repulsive force which triggers the movement for those electrons.


That single antiparallel electrons experiences the repulsion first and after that, electron A changes its spinning vector, which leads to repulsion between electrons A and B. At the same time electrons A and B are travelling away from electron C.



Again surrounding FTE ordered which electron changes its spinning vector orientation. Momentum will be conserved (the sum of momentum vectors is zero).

3. Scenario

Random spinning orientations (I'll write this later)

Special Edition

Christmas is coming! But that's not the topic of this post... In this post I want to go through some thoughts of mine regarding where TOEBI stands, what has happened, what will happen next and also thank Berry and Yop thoroughly.

TOEBI history started in summer of 2012. I wondered in couple of discussions with my friend about the essence of mass. What mass is? At that point there were no idea for it, but the thinking process kind of stucked on. Every now and then I thought about the question, draw some sketches and made visualization in my mind. I like to visualize subatomic processes in my mind even today and I also think that the ultimate TOE must work based on concrete objects (visualizable in one's mind).

At first I played around with mass and gravitational interaction. After a while I had created initial pet theory which seemed to work well enough (little I knew). On top of that I started to wonder if the same equation would work with particles. Naturally I realized pretty soon how complex the behaviour would be with particles so the development of proper mathematics for it took the second place because I realized mind blowing thing... particles are actually their own antiparticles! In certain conditions it's possible to annihilate those particles without the multibillion equipment ran by hundreds of physicists.

Such a realization took over my TOEBI time resources pretty effectively. I could harness antimatter for energy production... that would be something! Developing TOEBI in other branches didn't interest me anymore. I started to create contacts with experimental physicists in venues like ResearchGate. I had talks with few physicists but nothing materialized immediately. I still have few potential contacts, so let's hope for the best! But then something strange happened... two physicists, Berry and Yop came around, with attitude of course, but that's perfectly understandable. It was earned...

I had been beating my drum as loud as possible, provoking people with great headlines. Eventually I got what I wanted, feedback from real physicists. I was challenged, finally. For Berry and Yop my theory and its potential applications was a challenge... In what sense? Well, they both represent mainstream physics with mainstream theories etc. Crash and burn was, and still is, the target. They really want to see how crackpot takes the beating. During the process my thinking got sharper and I also got inspired for developing TOEBI once again, I found the spark! I got also good advices from these guys. Therefore, dear Berry and Yop, I thank you from bottom of my heart! I'm back baby!

What next? For sure, I'll keep on developing TOEBI in more rigorous manner, I have the motivation again. Naturally I'll keep on looking for the proper collaborator to my annihilation experiment. Doing it by myself isn't possible in my current phase of life. But that's fine, more time for the theory developing... I'm excited!

For Finnish readers, Happy Independence Day!!!

Muon - Take Two

Update: Second law of TOEBI is updated.

Based on the feedback from Berry and Yop I updated TOEBI to accommodate made observations. But before entering made changes I want to thank both Berry and Yop, Thank You! At the same time I have to apologize for barking current physicists for wrong reasons, namely for my own mistakes.

So what has changed? Here we go... new Second law of TOEBI

\vec F_{1\leftarrow 2}=G_{electron} \frac{M_{electron}^2}{r^2_{12}}\vec{e_{12}}\cos\alpha\tag{1}

where M is electron mass, \alpha is angle between spinning vectors,
r is distance between electrons (center to center), \vec e_{12}=\frac{\vec r_{12}}{r_{12}} is unit vector pointing from electron 1 to electron 2 and

G_{electron}=f_{electron}^2 \ \mathrm{\frac{m^3}{kg}}\tag{2}

where f_{electron} is the spinning frequency of electron.

At first look, it might seem that I have narrowed down my second law even further, but that's not the case. Protons are constructed of three electrons, also muons are electrons with the bigger mass. Ok, how muons have gained the bigger mass? That's the topic of a future blog post.

Now we can say that TOEBI agrees with


Finally, if I may say so.

I might continue this post later...


Update: Yop was right. Therefore muon don't have reduced spinning frequency. It has gained a bigger mass by other means than by reducing spinning frequency. I'll "revamp" TOEBI accordingly.

You can check the basic facts about muon from Wikipedia. How does muon plays out in TOEBI which contains only one lepton family particle, electron? In general, contemporary particle physics makes the difference between leptons on how much their trajectories bend in a magnetic field, for example heavier particles' trajectories bend less.

According to experiments muon mass is approximately 206.768 times the electron mass. Another interpretation (based on TOEBI) is that muon is electron with reduced spinning frequency. Let's see how this interpretation plays out...

When electron interacts with a magnetic field the G factor of interacting particles is

G_{electron}=\frac{1}{2}f_{electron}^2 \ \mathrm{\frac{m^3}{kg}}

where f_{electron}\approx8.98755*10^{16} 1/s. Now Berry wrote

We separately consider an electron-electron pair, a muon-electron pair and a muon-muon pair, each of them with the same separation distance and anti-parallel spinning direction. Then we can cancel r^2 and compare magnitudes. Experimentally the forces are found to be the same, so according to Second Law of TOEBI we must have
(G_e+G_e)M_e^2=(G_\mu+G_e)M_\mu M_e=(G_\mu+G_\mu)M_\mu^2~\Leftrightarrow~2f_e^2=(f_\mu^2+f_e^2)\mu=2f_\mu^2\,\mu^2
where I have introduced the mass ratio \mu=M_\mu/M_e\approx 200.

First of all, I would like to have a reference which states that those forces are equal and how the measurements are done. But let's forget that for a moment. The most interesting interaction happens between electrons creating the magnetic field and muon particle, and the force between single electron and muon is


Now contemporary particle physics says that the muon mass is 206.768 times the electron mass, so what would be the reduced spinning frequency which will generate such a "mass"? In order to create 206.768 times greater mass illusion electron have to interact that much weaker which means that


which gives us

f_{muon}\approx\sqrt{1/206.768}f_{electron}\approx0.07f_{electron}\approx6.25*10^{15}\text{ 1/s}\tag{3}

Now, back to Berry's example. What kind of distance differences would give equal force measurements? Let's say that the distance between two electrons is 0.01 m, so we get force \approx6.7*10^{-23} N. So, what would be the distance between electron and muon in order to generate the exact same force? That's easy

6.7*10^{-23}\text{ N}=(G_{electron}+G_{muon})\frac{M_{electron}^2}{r^2}\tag{4}

which gives r\approx 7*10^{-3} m and two muons would give r\approx7*10^{-4} m. According to Berry forces should be exactly the same at the same distance, so references are needed.

Or what about the size of muon atoms? According to mainstream physics, the muons (same attraction, higher mass) have to have smaller orbitals, in agreement with experiments. According to your ideas (lower attraction, same mass), though, the orbitals would have to be larger. Bummer!

What prevents electrons from crashing into nucleus? According to TOEBI, it's the repulsion generated by FTEP flux originated from spinning (proton) electrons (see chapter Equilibrium State from Atom Model and Relativity). Naturally the same applies in case of muons, however, due to smaller spinning frequency, muons are able to get closer to nucleus than electrons.

The muon mass does not only affect its trajectory in magnetic fields. For example, if Mμ=Me, how come after decay there is an electron left plus a lot of energy? Where was the energy stored before the decay? Maybe in the spinning? Nope, because according to you, fμ<fe. Bummer!

What happens (according to TOEBI) at the moment when muon decays? Obviously it gains back its original spinning frequency f_{electron} due to its interactions with other particles. Increased spinning frequency causes the particle accelerate which leads at the end neutrino generation. This last chapter is a bit lousy due to my lack of research, sorry about that.

Major Update

Due to major errors in Theory of Everything by Illusion paper I needed to make a major update to it. You can download it from the link on the right area. Major changes are...

  • Third law of TOEBI is dropped out as obsolete
  • Second law of TOEBI fixed (force calculations for elementary particles)
  • Gravitational constant is included as is

There is also fixed multiple smaller errors. Some parts were simply removed as being not relevant.  All of this made Introduction to Theory of Everything by Illusion outdated! Hopefully I'll manage to update that paper in near future as well.

Update: Introduction to Theory of Everything is also updated.

The Biggest Blunder in TOEBI

For multiple reasons I had this idea that gravitational constant G is easily calculated from object's spinning frequency f_{object}.

G_{object}= \frac{1}{2}f_{object}^2 \frac{m^3}{kg}\tag{1}

That doesn't work, as Berry has pointed out. Good old gravitational constant seems to be still valid in our solar system. However, rotation induced force generation still works in TOEBI. Spinning particle interactions can be calculated with those laws. So the question goes, what I have missed regarding gravitational interactions?

In TOEBI, gravitational interaction must emerge and be calculable from its hypotheses and laws. We have two observations

  1. Gravitational constant is valid
  2. Attractive force can be increased with significant rotation frequency (apparently Earth's rotation frequency is too small to increase attractive force)

With these building blocks I should be able to save my theory of everything... I have an idea already.


This blog post is inspired by the conversation in The biggest blunder in physics? where Berry was grilling TOEBI like no tomorrow. Calculations made inside my head are not necessarily the most accurate ones so here I do the math in format of a blog post.

Basic facts are here:

  • G_{Mercury}\approx 1.96*10^{-14}\frac{m^3}{kg*s^2} if whole Mercury is spinning at the same rate.
  • G_{Sun}\approx 3.2*10^{-13}\frac{m^3}{kg*s^2} based on estimated total spinning frequency [1]
  • M_{Sun}\approx1.98*10^{30} kg (TOEBI agrees with this value)
  • M_{Mercury}\approx3.3022*10^{23} kg (current value)

Everything should match with the next equation (Newton vs. TOEBI's II Law

G\frac{M_{Sun}M_{Mercury}}{R^2}= (G_{Sun}+G_{Mercury})\frac{M_{Sun}X}{R^2}\tag{1}

hence X\approx6.5*10^{25} kg. Obviously such a value is pretty suspicious. Let's keep that in mind...

Berry also pointed out that g_{Mercury}\approx 3.7 m/s² and that value would give Mercury even higher mass in case of G_{Mercury}\approx 1.96*10^{-14}\frac{m^3}{kg*s^2}. What's happening? There is two possible explanation, either TOEBI can't calculate Mercury's mass or Mercury's crust and core have a very different spinning frequencies.

Due to Mercury's size it's obvious that there is much smaller pressure inside Mercury caused by gravitational interaction. Smaller pressure makes these potentially very different spinning frequencies between the core and the crust plausible.  I wonder if this same explanation works with my Moon mass calculation...? The idea of very large spin frequency differences between a stellar object's core and crust didn't occurred to my mind earlier, shame on me.

At this point, I shall release Berry. I might continue with this post later on.

Ok then, what is the real G_{Mercury}? We can calculate it from equation (1) by substituting X with Mercury's mass, so we  get G_{Mercury}\approx6.64*10^{-11}\frac{m^3}{kg*s^2} . Total spinning frequency is hence 1.15*10^{-5} 1/s which means sidereal rotation period \approx 1.007 d.

Now gravitational acceleration on the surface is

G_{Mercury}\frac{M_{Mercury}}{R_{Mercury}}\approx3.68\text{ } \frac{m}{s^2} \tag{2}